non-COVID Group Research Articles

Benign inoperable tracheal stenosis in COVID versus non-COVID patients at the pandemic epicenter: a case series.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exponentially expanded the number of patients requiring treatment for chronic respiratory failure. One consequence is an increase in the number of patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation. Benign inoperable tracheal stenosis presents a challenge, especially in COVID-19 patients. We describe a case series of 15 patients with Benign inoperable tracheal stenosis treated with interventional bronchoscopy over a 15-month period. These patients were divided into two groups, COVID and non-COVID. We used an electrocautery snare as an electrocautery knife to cut the stenotic segment followed by four injections of 1mg submucosal Decadron via a Wang needle. Patients were subsequently followed by the pulmonary clinic. Institutional review board approval was not required as per our institutional policy for a retrospective case series. There was a high degree of success with this intervention, with a low rate of recurrence. We also noticed the following differences between the two subgroups. COVID tracheal stenosis was longer in length, had a higher percentage of cartilage involvement, and was located more distal to cords than the non-COVID group. The median age was younger in the COVID group. COVID pandemic an enormous number of intubations and tracheotomies have been performed. As a result, there will be an increased prevalence of tracheal stenosis. Most of these cases can be effectively treated with surgery. Dealing with complex inoperable cases remains a dilemma. Our case series/research article is an attempt to provide an easy technique with a high cure rate.

Comparative Analysis of Costs of Caring for Inpatient COVID-19 Patients and Non-COVID-19 Patients at One Academic Center.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a significant financial burden on the US healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to compare the costs of caring for patients admitted with COVID-related illness versus non-COVID patients. We hypothesized that the average daily costs of hospitalization would be higher among COVID patients compared with non-COVID patients. This was a retrospective cohort study. Data were downloaded for patients who were admitted at Atrium Wake Forest Baptist Hospital from January 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021. The study population was dichotomized by COVID and non-COVID patients, and the average daily hospital cost was calculated. Multivariate adjusted linear regression models were used to calculate additional "average daily cost" comparisons. The COVID group was slightly older (mean age 61.0 vs 58.0 years), with longer mean length of stay (6.12 vs 4.95 days) and higher mean average daily direct cost ($1504.01 vs $1341.30) when compared with the non-COVID group, respectively (P < 0.001). After adjusting for various patient characteristics, the direct inpatient cost was $123.00 (95% confidence interval 74.4-171.5) higher per day in patients with COVID-19 (P < 0.0001). When indirect costs are considered, the combined indirect and direct cost may be four times greater. The average daily direct hospital cost is higher among patients with COVID compared with non-COVID-related illness. Many reasons contributed to this cost difference, including decreased nurse staffing ratios, lower physician censuses, and needed infrastructure changes. Studies with a larger sample size and more precise comparable study groups are warranted to validate our findings.

Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes for People With and Without COVID-19 Diagnoses Receiving Inpatient Rehabilitation Care Across the US in 2020-2021

ObjectiveTo assess sociodemographic, medical complexity, and outcomes of persons receiving care at inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) with and without a diagnosis of COVID-19. DesignA retrospective cohort study using electronic medical record (EMR) data from 138 IRFs across 34 states and Puerto Rico. SettingN/A. ParticipantsIRF EMR data for 212,663 patients discharged between 04/01/2020 and 05/31/2021 (N=212,663), of which 16,199 (COVID-19 group) had a primary or secondary COVID-19 diagnosis based upon ICD codes set (ICD-10 codes U07.1, B94.8, Z86.19, Z86.16). Main Outcome MeasuresFour categories: (a) sociodemographic, (b) medical complexity, (c) process, that is, standard IRF processes, and clinical outcomes (collected routinely as part of administrative reporting), and (d) functional outcomes. Patients with missing functional data associated with short/incomplete stays (n=623) were excluded from analysis of functional outcomes category only. Standard descriptive analysis techniques were employed for comparing categorical and continuous variables between groups. ResultsStatistically significant differences were noted between the COVID-19 group and non-COVID groups for race (26.0% vs 19.7% non-minority, P<.001), Case Mix Index (1.49 vs 1.46, P<.001), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 60% rule qualification (79.0% vs 73.4%, P<.001), time to onset (24.3 vs 18.0 days, P<.001), length of stay (14.2 vs 12.9 days, P<.001), and discharge disposition (to community: 75.3% vs 81%, P<.001; to acute care facility: 15.6% vs 10.8%, P<.001). The COVID-19 group had higher frequency of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, encephalopathy, morbid obesity, and critical illness neuropathy and myopathy. Clinically insignificant differences were noted for age, sex, depression, and cognitive assessment. Ability to participate and functional outcomes were comparable between the groups. ConclusionThere are significant differences between the COVID-19 and non-COVID group in some sociodemographic, medical complexity, process and clinical outcomes, but not in functional outcomes. The ability to participate in the IRF-required intensity of therapy services along with attainment of comparable levels of functional outcomes supports the benefit of IRFs for persons with COVID-19.

Obstetrik hastalarda, SARS-CoV-2 spinal sonrası hipotansiyon için risk faktörü müdür?

Background: Since the onset of COVID-19, recommendations suggest the use of neuraxial anesthesia, over general anesthesia for cesarian section to avoid the risks of aerosolization associated with intubation and extubation. But the safety of performing spinal anesthesia is unclear especially for post spinal hypotension, during the presence of active COVID-19. According to a few studies there was a controversial discussion about the safety of regional anesthesia. In this study we aimed to compare the incidence of hypotension in COVID-19 pregnant patients between non-COVID 19 pregnant patients in the literature to see if the spinal anesthesia is safe or if it poses an additional risk.&#x0D; Materials and Methods: Medical records of COVID-19 pregnant women for cesarean section from the beginning of the pandemic up to December 2020 were retrospectively retrieved. All the demographic-vital data, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP-DBP), ephedrine-atropine doses, infusion volumes, and nausea and vomiting were retrospectively analyzed. &#x0D; Results: Spinal anesthesia induced hypotension was seen 54 of the patients (21,69%). And vasopressors (Ephedrine) were used to all hypotensive patients. Demographic data’s, the amount of bupivacaine and crystalloid volume which used before the spinal anesthesia showed no differences between hypotensive and non-hypotensive patients. &#x0D; Conclusion: This is the first retrospective study which shows 249 COVID 19 patients’ data in one center that no significant difference was seen in the incidence of hypotension associated with spinal anesthesia for COVID-19 cesarean section compared to non-COVID group in literature. We recommend using of regional anesthesia safely for patients and anesthesiologists during active COVID-19 patients.

Long COVID in Young Patients: Impact on Lung Volume Evaluated Using Multidetector CT.

To evaluate using quantitative analysis on chest CT images a possible lung volume reduction in Long COVID patients who complain mild respiratory symptoms, with chest CT negative for inflammatory findings. CT images of patients from 18 to 40 years old who underwent chest CT scan at our institution were analyzed retrospectively, using AwServer Thoracic VCAR software for a quantitative study. Exclusion criteria were inflammatory findings at CT, previous lung surgery, lung cancer, and breath artifacts that invalidate the quality of images. Patients were divided into two groups: in the first one ("post-COVID") were patients who had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by an RT-PCR, who underwent chest CT from 3 to 6 months after their negativization for long COVID symptoms; in the control group ("non-COVID"), were enrolled patients who underwent a chest CT scan from January 2018 to December 2019, before the spread of COVID in Italy. Our final population included 154 TC, 77 post-COVID patients (mean age 33 ± 6) and 77 non-COVID patients (mean age 33 ± 4.9). Non statistical significative differences were obtained between groups in terms of age, sex, and other characteristics that affect total lung capacity such as obesity, thoracic malformations, and smoking habit. Mean values of the total lung volume (TV), right-lung volume (RV), and left-lung volume (LV) in the post-COVID group compared with non-COVID group were, respectively: 5.25 ± 0.25 L vs. 5.72 ± 0.26 L (p = 0.01); 2.76 ± 0.14 L vs. 3 ± 0.14 L (p = 0.01); 2.48 ± 0.12 L vs. 2.72 ± 0.12 L (p = 0.01). In patients with symptoms suggesting Long COVID and negative chest CT macroscopic findings, quantitative volume analysis demonstrated a mean value of reduction in lung volume of 10% compared to patients of the same age who never had COVID. A chest CT negative for inflammatory findings may induce clinicians to attribute Long COVID mild respiratory symptoms to anxiety, especially in young patients. Our study brings us beyond appearances and beyond the classic radiological signs, introducing a quantitative evaluation of lung volumes in these patients. It is hard to establish to what extent this finding may contribute to Long COVID symptoms, but this is another step to gain a wider knowledge of the potential long-term effects caused by this new virus.

Analysis of Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19 Compared to Non-COVID Etiologies.

This study analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of veno-venous (V-V) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 versus non-COVID causes at US academic centers. V-V ECMO support has been utilized for COVID-19 patients with ARDS since the beginning of the pandemic. Mortality for ECMO in COVID-19 has been reported to be high but similar to reported mortality for ECMO support for non-COVID causes of respiratory failure. Using ICD-10 codes, data of patients who underwent V-V ECMO for COVID-19 ARDS were compared with patients who underwent V-V ECMO for non-COVID causes between April 2020 and December 2022. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures included length of stay and direct cost. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was performed to analyze differences in mortality between COVID and non-COVID groups, adjusting for other important risk factors (age, sex, and race/ethnicity). We identified and compared 6382 patients who underwent V-V ECMO for non-COVID causes to 6040 patients who underwent V-V ECMO for COVID-19. There was a significantly higher proportion of patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent V-V ECMO in the non-COVID group compared with the COVID group (19.8% vs. 3.7%, respectively, P <0.001). Compared with patients who underwent V-V ECMO for non-COVID causes, patients who underwent V-V ECMO for COVID had increased in-hospital mortality (47.6% vs. 34.5%, P <0.001), length of stay (46.5±41.1 days vs. 40.6±46.1, P <0.001), and direct hospitalization cost ($207,022±$208,842 vs. $198,508±205,510, P =0.02). Compared with the non-COVID group, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for in-hospital mortality in the COVID group was 2.03 (95% CI: 1.87-2.20, P <0.001). In-hospital mortality for V-V ECMO in COVID-19 improved during the study time period (50.3% in 2020, 48.6% in 2021, and 37.3% in 2022). However, there was a precipitous drop in the ECMO case volume for COVID starting in quarter 2 of 2022. In this nationwide analysis, COVID-19 patients with ARDS requiring V-V ECMO support had increased mortality compared with patients who underwent V-V ECMO for non-COVID etiologies.

Psychological health of Indian youth during COVID-19: a study through three chronological surveys

The COVID-19 pandemic and its aftereffects have affected human lives psychologically, economically, and socially. The study examines the dynamics of mental health problems faced by young adults and the consequent effects on their daily lives during the pandemic period. Three surveys were conducted among colleges/universities going students in India during the time periods May-June 2020, October 2020-February 2021, and January-February 2022; using Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) 17+ self-reported extended version. Through 1,021, 743, and 932 responses in the three surveys respectively, the effect of the pandemic on the mental health (characterized by behavioral problems and social dysfunction) of respondents, categorized on basis of demographic variables and ‘COVID-19’ status was studied. Females were found to be more ‘distressed’ than during this period. There was no effect of age and family income. The 45% of the respondents in the Non-COVID group and 48% in the COVID-19 group had severe distress. With the passing of time, both the number of problem areas and the severity of problems faced by young adults increased thus affecting their day-to-day activities. The proportions of the respondents in borderline and abnormal categories were much higher both for difficulty and the impact scores of SDQ than the standard proportions.

Post-intensive care syndrome and pulmonary fibrosis in patients surviving ARDS-pneumonia of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 etiologies

The purpose was to examine patient-centered outcomes and the occurrence of lung fibrotic changes on Chest computed tomography (CT) imaging following pneumonia-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We sought to investigate outpatient clinic chest CT imaging in survivors of COVID19-related ARDS and non-COVID-related ARDS, to determine group differences and explore relationships between lung fibrotic changes and functional outcomes. A retrospective practice analysis of electronic health records at an ICU Recovery Clinic in a tertiary academic medical center was performed in adult patients surviving ARDS due to COVID-19 and non-COVID etiologies. Ninety-four patients with mean age 53 ± 13 and 51% male were included (n = 64 COVID-19 and n = 30 non-COVID groups). There were no differences for age, sex, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration, or sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores between the two groups. Fibrotic changes visualized on CT imaging occurred in a higher proportion of COVID-19 survivors (70%) compared to the non-COVID group (43%, p < 0.001). Across both groups, patients with fibrotic changes (n = 58) were older, had a lower BMI, longer hospital and ICU LOS, lower mean RASS scores, longer total duration of supplemental oxygen. While not statistically different, patients with fibrotic changes did have reduced respiratory function, worse performance on the six-minute walk test, and had high occurrences of anxiety, depression, emotional distress, and mild cognitive impairment regardless of initial presenting diagnosis. Patients surviving pneumonia-ARDS are at high risk of impairments in physical, emotional, and cognitive health related to Post-Intensive Care Syndrome. Of clinical importance, pulmonary fibrotic changes on chest CT occurred in a higher proportion in COVID-ARDS group; however, no functional differences were measured in spirometry or physical assessments at ICU follow-up. Whether COVID infection imparts a unique recovery is not evident from these data but suggest that long-term follow up is necessary for all survivors of ARDS.

Severe COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome versus classic hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis: similarities, differences, and the way forward.

The hyperinflammatory immune response in severe COVID-19 infection shares features with secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH) in the form of fever, cytopenia, elevated inflammatory markers, and high mortality. There are contrasting opinions regarding utility of HLH 2004 or HScore in the diagnosis of severe COVID-19-related hyperinflammatory syndrome (COVID-HIS). This was a retrospective study of 47 patients of severe COVID-19 infection, suspected to have COVID-HIS and 22 patients of sHLH to other illnesses, to evaluate the diagnostic utility and limitations of HLH 2004 and/or HScore in context to COVID-HIS and to also evaluate the utility of Temple criteria for predicting severity and outcome in COVID-HIS. Clinical findings, hematological, and biochemical parameters along with the predictor of mortality were compared between two groups. Only 6.4% (3/47) of cases fulfilled ≥5/8 HLH 2004 criteria and only 40.52% (19/47) of patients showed HScore >169 in COVID-HIS group. 65.9% (31/47) satisfied the Temple criteria in COVID-HIS as compared with 40.9% (9/22) in the non-COVID group (p = 0.04). Serum ferritin (p = 0.02), lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.02), direct bilirubin (p = 0.02), and C-reactive protein (p = 0.03) were associated with mortality in COVID-HIS. Both HScore and HLH-2004 criteria perform poorly for identifying COVID-HIS. Presence of bone marrow hemophagocytosis may help to identify about one-third of COVID-HIS missed by the Temple Criteria.

COVID-19 does not influence functional status after ARDS therapy

RationaleHealth-related quality of life after surviving acute respiratory distress syndrome has come into focus in recent years, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.ObjectivesA total of 144 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19 or of other origin were recruited in a randomized multicenter trial.MethodsClinical data during intensive care treatment and data up to 180 days after study inclusion were collected. Changes in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score were used to quantify disease severity. Disability was assessed using the Barthel index on days 1, 28, 90, and 180.MeasurementsMortality rate and morbidity after 180 days were compared between patients with and without COVID-19. Independent risk factors associated with high disability were identified using a binary logistic regression.Main resultsThe SOFA score at day 5 was an independent risk factor for high disability in both groups, and score dynamic within the first 5 days significantly impacted disability in the non-COVID group. Mortality after 180 days and impairment measured by the Barthel index did not differ between patients with and without COVID-19.ConclusionsResolution of organ dysfunction within the first 5 days significantly impacts long-term morbidity. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19 was not associated with increased mortality or morbidity.

A PANDEMIA DE COVID-19 NÃO AFETOU A REABILITAÇÃO DEPOIS DE RECONSTRUÇÃO DO LCA

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess postoperative rehabilitation patterns in patients who underwent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A retrospective study of patients who underwent primary isolated ACLR between February 2019 and July 2020. Two different periods were evaluated. The “COVID group” represents the period from February 1st to July 1st of 2020 and the “non-COVID group” represents the equivalent period in 2019. Rehabilitation features and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on rehabilitation habits were assessed. Patient outcome scores were assessed using the Lysholm, Tegner, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaires. Subjective satisfaction, post-operative complications, and subsequent surgeries were recorded. Results: The groups did not differ significantly in demographics, functional outcome scores, or subjective satisfaction. There was no significant difference in rehabilitation patterns between the groups. In the COVID group, only one patient (4%) reported participation in online physiotherapy. Conclusions: There were no differences in the post-operative rehabilitation patterns, including duration, length, and environment of the training, between patients who underwent primary isolated ACLR during the COVID-19 pandemic and those who underwent the treatment in the preceding non-COVID year. Patient outcome scores, subjective satisfaction, and subsequent surgery rates did not differ between the groups. Level of evidence IV; Therapeutic studies - investigation of treatment results.

Impact of COVID on the mental health and cognitive functioning level of elderly individuals

Background: The unprecedented COVID-19 outbreak caused widespread worry and alarm throughout the world. The virus affected people of all ages, although the elderly is at a larger risk. This study examines the mental health concerns and the cognitive functioning that older people encounter as a result COVID affected. Objective: To study the mental health and cognitive functioning level in older adults with covid affect in comparison with non-covid affect. Methods: Comparative study design was adapted; participants include those who are aged above 60 years with covid affected and non-covid affected. Socio-demographic details were collected. Clinical scales such as GHQ, GDS and HARS were utilized for checking the mental health condition of the elderly individuals. MMSE scale was used for assessing the cognitive level. Results: The sample size consisted of 30 elderly individuals with 15 covid affect and 15 elderly with non-covid affected. The mean age of the covid affected group was 65.9 years and non-covid group was 65.8. Covid group scored low on orientation mean and SD (2.75±1.91), memory (1.75±1.40) and total MMSE (18.45±5.10) than compared non-covid affected. There is a significant difference between the covid and non-covid on orientation p=0.023* and total MMSE p=0.007** Discussion: The results revealed that covid affected scored lower on orientation, memory and total cognitive score than non-covid affected elderly individuals. Age and education has positive association with cognition level and general health had negative correlation with orientation indicates higher scores on GHQ lower in orientation.

Autonomic heart rate modulation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in mechanical ventilation.

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 on automatic mechanical ventilation have greater heart rate modulation with greater parasympathetic modulation. To analyze the autonomic modulation of heart rate in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 on invasive mechanical ventilation. A cross-section study was carried out with 36 individuals divided into two groups. The control group included patients of both genders, in orotracheal intubation with invasive mechanical ventilation under controlled assisted mode, hospitalized in the intensive care unit for another 24 h. In the non-COVID group, patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 in the same condition mentioned in the control group. There was a significant increase in heart rate variability (standard deviation of all normal RR intervals recorded at an interval of time; p=0.001; triangular interpolation histogram of RR intervals; p=0.048; and SD2; p=0.014) in the coronavirus disease group compared to the non-COVID group. Successively, the parameters that demonstrate parasympathetic modulation are shown to be higher in the group of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (root mean square of the square of differences between adjacent normal RR intervals in an interval of time; p<0.001; pNN50; p<0.001; SD1; p=0.002; and high frequency; p=0.022). There was a greater autonomic modulation of heart rate with a greater parasympathetic modulation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 on mechanical ventilation.

COVID-19 and cognitive function: Evidence for increased processing speed variability in COVID-19 survivors and multifaceted impairment with long-COVID symptoms.

There is increasing evidence for cognitive function to be negatively impacted by COVID-19. There is, however, limited research evaluating cognitive function pre- and post-COVID-19 using objective measures. We examined processing speed, attention, working memory, executive function and memory in adults (≤69years) with a history of COVID-19 (n=129, none acutely unwell), compared to those with no known history of COVID-19 (n=93). We also examined cognitive changes in a sub-group of COVID (n=30) and non-COVID (n=33) participants, compared to their pre-COVID-19 pandemic level. Cross-sectionally, the COVID group showed significantly larger intra-individual variability in processing speed, compared to the non-COVID group. The COVID sub-group also showed significantly larger intra-individual variability in processing speed, compared to their pre-COVID level; no significant change occurred in non-COVID participants over the same time scale. Other cognitive indices were not significantly impacted in the cross-sectional or within-subjects investigations, but participants (n=20) who had needed hospitalisation due to COVID-19 showed poor attention and executive function relative to those who had not required hospitalisation (n=109). Poor health and long-COVID symptoms correlated with poor cognitive function across domains in the COVID group. The findings indicate a limited cognitive impact of COVID-19 with only intra-individual variability in processing speed being significantly impacted in an adult UK sample. However, those who required hospitalisation due to COVID-19 severity and/or experience long-COVID symptoms display multifaceted cognitive impairment and may benefit from repeated cognitive assessments and remediation efforts.

Incidence and implications of atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized for COVID compared to non-COVID pneumonia: A multicenter cohort study.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) has been reported to occur with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but whether it is related to myocarditis or lung injury is unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare incident AF in patients with pneumonia/adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with and without COVID. This retrospective multicenter cohort study from 17 hospitals (March 2020 to December 2021) utilizing the University of California COVID Research Data Set (CORDS) included patients aged ≥18 years with primary diagnosis of pneumonia or ARDS during hospitalization. Patients with a history of AF were excluded. All subjects had documented COVID test results. Cohorts were compared using the χ2 test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank test for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between COVID and development of new AF. Of the 39,415 subjects, 12.2% had COVID. The COVID+ cohort consisted predominantly of younger males with more comorbidities. Incident AF was lower in the COVID+ group than in the non-COVID group (523 [10.85%] vs 4899 [14.16%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.74; P <.001), which remained significant after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities (OR 0.71; P <.001). Patients had normal cardiac troponin levels. AF was related to intensive care unit care, pressor support, and mechanical ventilation, and was associated with higher mortality (26.2% vs 10.21%; P <.001) and longer hospitalization (22.5 vs 15.1 days; P <.001) in the COVID+ group compared to the controls. Incident AF is lower in COVID+ compared to non-COVID pneumonia/ARDS patients and seems to be related to severity of illness rather cardiac injury. AF was associated with higher mortality and prolonged hospitalization.

Dying during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sweden: Relatives' Experiences of End-of-Life Care (the CO-LIVE Study).

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen many deaths, but the majority were for causes other than COVID-19. However, end-of-life care in all settings has been affected by measures limiting the spread of the virus, for patients with and without COVID-19. The Swedish coronavirus strategy was different compared to many other countries, which might have affected end-of-life care. The aim was to describe the experiences of end-of-life care for bereaved relatives in Sweden during the “first wave” and to compare the experiences for deaths due to COVID-19 with the experiences for deaths for other reasons. Methods: A random sample of addresses for 2400 people who died during March−September 2020 was retrieved from the Swedish Person Address Registry. Relatives were contacted with a questionnaire regarding their experience of end-of-life care, with a focus on communication, participation, and trust. Results: In total, 587 relatives (25% response rate) answered the questionnaire (14% COVID-19-deaths, 65% non-COVID-19-deaths, 21% uncertain). In the COVID-19 group 28% of the relatives were allowed visits without restrictions compared to 60% in the non-COVID-19 group (p < 0.01). Only 28% of the relatives in the COVID-19 group reported that the person received “enough care from physicians”, significantly fewer than the non-COVID group (65%, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Relatives’ experience of end-of-life care for persons with COVID-19 was significantly worse than relatives of persons without COVID-19, but relatives for persons without COVID-19 were also negatively affected.

Delirium during Covid-19 pandemic: were we over-reporting an overlooked syndrome?

Objective: To compare incidence of delirium in Emergency Department in elderly patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection and sepsis for other etiologies. Methods: This observational study analyzed elderly patients (&gt;65 years) from two cohort studies that recruited patients in an urban and academic Emergency Department. The first cohort studied septic patients before Covid-19 pandemic and was conducted between September 30, 2019, and March 17, 2020. The second cohort studied Covid-19 patients between April 8, 2021, and May 28, 2021. Our primary outcome was the incidence of delirium at admission in Emergency Department, which we defined using the Confusion Assessment Method. Results: We included 141 patients in our final analysis, with a median age of 72 (interquartile range: 68 to 79) years and a predominance of the male sex (58%). We identified delirium at admission in 31 participants (21%) in septic non-Covid group and 11 (24%) in Covid-19 group (p=0.70). Conclusion: This present study does not support that elderly patients with Covid-19 have higher risk for delirium at admission in Emergency Department when compared to patients hospitalized with sepsis for other etiologies. Although sepsis for Covid-19 have had more than 28% mortality, Covid-19 was not associated with higher mortality in elderly than sepsis for other etiologies. The study protocol was approved by the local Research Ethics Committee (CAPPESq, protocol number 30417520.0.0000.0068).

The negative impact of COVID-19 on working memory revealed using a rapid online quiz.

Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects the respiratory system, it can also have neurological consequences leading to cognitive deficits such as memory problems. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on working memory function. We developed and implemented an online anonymous survey with a working memory quiz incorporating aspects of gamification to engage participants. 5428 participants successfully completed the survey and memory quiz between 8th December 2020 and 5th July 2021 (68.6% non-COVID-19 and 31.4% COVID-19). Most participants (93.3%) completed the survey and memory quiz relatively rapidly (mean time of 8.84 minutes). Categorical regression was used to assess the contribution of COVID status, age, time post-COVID (number of months elapsed since having had COVID), symptoms, ongoing symptoms and gender, followed by non-parametric statistics. A principal component analysis explored the relationship between subjective ratings and objective memory scores. The objective memory scores were significantly correlated with participants' own assessment of their cognitive function. The factors significantly affecting memory scores were COVID status, age, time post-COVID and ongoing symptoms. Our main finding was a significant reduction in memory scores in all COVID groups (self-reported, positive-tested and hospitalized) compared to the non-COVID group. Memory scores for all COVID groups combined were significantly reduced compared to the non-COVID group in every age category 25 years and over, but not for the youngest age category (18-24 years old). We found that memory scores gradually increased over a period of 17 months post-COVID-19. However, those with ongoing COVID-19 symptoms continued to show a reduction in memory scores. Our findings demonstrate that COVID-19 negatively impacts working memory function, but only in adults aged 25 years and over. Moreover, our results suggest that working memory deficits with COVID-19 can recover over time, although impairments may persist in those with ongoing symptoms.

Abstract 9691: Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Hospitalized for COVID Compared to Non-COVID Pneumonia/ARDS

Introduction: Though atrial fibrillation (AF) has been reported with COVID, it is unclear if it is related to myocarditis or lung injury. The aim of this study was to compare incident AF in pneumonia/ARDS with and without COVID. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study from 17 hospitals (3/2020 to 12/2021) utilizing the University of California COVID Research Data Set (CORDS), we included patients &gt;18 years with primary diagnosis of pneumonia or ARDS during hospitalization by ICD-10. We excluded those with prior AF. Subjects were determined to have COVID based on positive PCR test within 10 days prior or during inpatient admission and compared to a control group with negative PCR test. Clinical data was extracted from electronic medical records. The cohorts were compared using χ2 test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank tests for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between COVID and development of new atrial fibrillation. Results: Of the 39,415 subjects, 12.2% had COVID. The COVID+ cohort was younger, had more males, and more co-morbidities. They required more mechanical ventilation, but less ICU care and hemodynamic support (Table 1). Incident AF occurred in 523 (10.85%) of COVID vs 4,899 (14.16%) in the non-COVID group (OR 0.74, p &lt; 0.001), which remained significant after adjustment of demographics and co-morbidities (p &lt; 0.001). AF was associated with higher mortality (26.2% vs. 10.21%, p &lt;0.001) and longer hospitalization (22.5 vs. 15.1 days, p &lt;0.001) in COVID group compared to the controls (Table 2). Conclusions: Incident AF is less in COVID compared to non-COVID pneumonia/ARDS despite requiring more mechanical ventilation, however had higher mortality and prolonged hospitalization.

T-cell dysfunction as a potential contributing factor in post-COVID-19 mucormycosis.

The second wave of COVID-19 in India was followed by large number of mucormycosis cases. Indiscriminate use of immunosuppressive drugs, underlying diseases such as diabetes, cancers, or autoimmune diseases was thought to be the cause. However, the mortality was not as high as that seen in non-COVID mucormycosis. To study the detailed characteristics of T-cells for evaluating the underlying differences in the T-cell immune dysfunction in post-COVID and non-COVID mucor patients. The study included histopathologically confirmed cases of mucor (13 post-COVID, 13 non-COVID) and 15 healthy individuals (HI). Expression of T-cell activation (CD44, HLADR, CD69, CD38) and exhaustion (CTLA, PD-1, LAG-3 and TIM-3) markers was evaluated by flow cytometry. All cases showed significant depletion of T-cells compared to HI. Both post-COVID and non-COVID groups showed increased activation and exhaustion as compared to HI. Non-COVID mucor group showed significant activation of CD4+ T cells for HLADR and CD38 (p=.025, p=.054) and marked T-cell exhaustion in form of expression of LAG-3 on both CD4+ T and CD8+ T cells in comparison with post-COVID patients (p =.011, p=.036). Additionally, co-expression of PD-1 & LAG-3 and LAG-3 & TIM-3 on CD8+ T cells was statistically significant in non-COVID mucor patients (p=.016, p=.027). Immunosuppression in non-COVID mucor showed pronounced exhaustion of T-cells in comparison to post-COVID mucor cases implicating T-cell immune dysfunction is much more severe in non-COVID mucor which are in a state of continuous activation followed by extreme exhaustion leading to poorer outcome.